McCray v. Carstensen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding the defendant’s action of locking plaintiffs out of premises was not “sufficient interference with plaintiffs’ personal property” as the “defendants were willing to allow plaintiffs to access the premises for the purpose of removing their property”
• also citing Kendall/Hunt, but not § 222A of the Restatement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).